Seipher Caim's Saga

there is no definitive definition to any of those. Many definitions exist for any alliance you speak about. Each one will be a mix of bias, truth, history, revisionism, and the like. thus, why CnG felt ODN changed while others did not or still do not would of course vary according to who you talked to. Why Valhalla has or has not changed while Sparta or MHA have? who knows. it will not only typically vary from alliance to alliance but also from person to person.

Change in government is a big one, especially autocratic-style alliance. Tulak Hord stepping down, for example, is a big change for Sparta. If the Mushroom Kingdom were to have a new king, that would be a huge change.

This also depends on whether the newcomer worked closely with the old leader. e.g. if Archon were to be replaced by SirWilliam, you probably (this is a guess, I haven't worked closely with either) wouldn't notice a big change since the two have worked together for so long anyway.

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

What ODN did during Karma was essentially the same as what they did under previous SecGens .I understand Arsenal wasn't SecGen during this time, if I recall correctly it was Sunstar, but still

Change in government is a big one, especially autocratic-style alliance. Tulak Hord stepping down, for example, is a big change for Sparta. If the Mushroom Kingdom were to have a new king, that would be a huge change.

This also depends on whether the newcomer worked closely with the old leader. e.g. if Archon were to be replaced by SirWilliam, you probably (this is a guess, I haven't worked closely with either) wouldn't notice a big change since the two have worked together for so long anyway.

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

Arsenal was SoS at the time, and although he was quite vocal, he didn't have any more voting power than any other member. Arsenal has only been in government while both him and Sunstar were SG, so it is true that he never was involved during the bad old days

What ODN did during Karma was essentially the same as what they did under previous SecGens .I understand Arsenal wasn't SecGen during this time, if I recall correctly it was Sunstar, but still

Not really. We dropped Polar after WN manipulated a weird piece of legislation called the "Crisis Committee" where he dropped Polaris without GA consultation in one late night IRC session. In Karma, Sunstar and the rest of the government had a couple of huge topics in our department of discourse, spanning several days, to decide where the alliance would go. After some revelations about IRON, we chose to back Vanguard, R&R and INT, alliances we were extremely close to at the time, and in INT's case, still are. Polaris did not have GA backing, whereas Karma did.

As for change, we showed it by demonstrating a great deal of activity and economic improvement. To someone involved with the ODN, or someone close to us, it is incredibly easy to see that we have changed. To someone further away, I guess it is more difficult to see.